White Vote Furor

Can we clarify something here: White voters are a voting block, a demographic breakdown of the American electorate, just as black voters, hispanic voters or rural voters are. There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about pointing out who is winning a particular block of voters.

Hillary has created a minor furor by making an argument for her own candidacy that points out that she is a more viable general election candidate because white voters support her.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

This is a serious problem for democrats, which you'll see if you examine the numbers in my previous post - democrats don't win the white vote, and that's why they don't win the White House. This is not compensated for by Barack's large black vote - he gets 90% - as all democratic nominees get in the 88% range. It's required to be competitive.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

Wait a second - what blunt remarks? She didn't say anything about race! Hillary was doing a demographic reality check for her party - I'm the one who can win because I can get mainstream voters to vote for me!!! Barack can't.

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.

That's not the point, Larry. Hillary is highlighting an underlying flaw in the Barack candidacy. Again, look at the voting blocks that John Kerry got, and in most cases, Barack does worse than Kerry. Its not just whites, but Barack does poorly with hispanics!

Obama gets 37% of white voters, Kerry took 41%
Obama gets 91% of blacks, but Kerry took 88%
Obama gets 51% of hispanics, but Kerry got 53%
Obama gets 36% of regular churchgoers, but Kerry got 39%
Obama gets 47% of white women, but Kerry got 51%
Barack ties Kerry among white men.

This is the reason democrats love illegal immigration - it brings folks in who fit into voting blocks that they tend to win. They oppose common sense voting requirements like showing an id at the polls for the same reason. The less sophisticated, the less educated or the less successful you are, the more likely you are to vote for democrats.

So why the big deal about white voters? Well, you know the answer to that. You
run afoul of the PC Police if you talk like that. This is part of the game the democratic party plays to keep minority voters in the fold.

Check out this racial divide columnist in Florida:

Racists should decide the Democratic nomination.

Not the superdelegates or pledged delegates, but those who will refuse to vote for a black man in November should decide.

Sen. Hillary Clinton didn't use those words in an interview with USA Today, but she came close.

Having a hair trigger on the race baiting gun is, of course, divisive and promotes bigotry, but that's how the democrats build their business.